National Tax Service Review Corporation 2010-0069 (Law No. 26, 2011)

It is reasonable to deem that the purchase of scrap metal is not a normal transaction but a payment for consideration.

It is reasonable to deem that the actual purchase of scrap metal is insufficient to acknowledge, but rather, it is paid for a fee rather than a normal purchase.

2011. Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax;

XX Co., Ltd

Head of the High Tax Office

May 8, 2012

June 12, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 000 for the business year 2005-2008 against the Plaintiff on April 16, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

On December 14, 2009, the Defendant conducted a survey on the part of value-added tax with respect to the Plaintiff who is engaged in the automobile parts manufacturing business. As a result, the Plaintiff purchased scrap metal from the 1st to the 1st of 2006 period from the 1st of 2005 to the 1st of 2006, whichever was reported, 000 won should be recognized as normal transaction, but 000 won (hereinafter referred to as the “instant transaction portion”) should be regarded as a processing transaction without any real transaction, and then the Defendant issued the instant disposition to correct and notify the Plaintiff of 205 to 2008 corporate tax for the business year from 2008 on April 16, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The key issue of the instant case was that the Council purchased scrap metals from the O Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O Steel”), and supplied them to the Plaintiff as a vehicle of O Steel. However, based on false input data, the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the premise that Y Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “YY”) purchased from O Steel and supplied them to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

(1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are recognized in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 11 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5 (including paper numbers).

(A) The Defendant specified the instant case as the subject transaction amount in the case where the vehicle number owned by O Steel was indicated on the table of the class among those of those scrap metal transactions that the Plaintiff reported that the Plaintiff purchased from the Council, and the total value was KRW 000.

(B) However, the O Steel did not supply scrap metal to the Plaintiff, and the key issue of the instant case was that the Plaintiff recovered scrap metal from Y’s collaborative companies and transported it to the Plaintiff instead of Y, and the price and transportation expenses received from Y, and the sales account statement was issued in Y future.

(C) Y, as the other party to the transaction from the O Steel, sold the scrap metal purchased from the O Steel to the Plaintiff at a commercial price, and ordered the O Steel to directly transport the scrap metal to the Plaintiff. Around 00 won of the supply price, the return of additional tax was completed, and the price was offset against the price of the goods to be paid to the Plaintiff.

(D) The representative KimA reply to the Plaintiff that the sales amount to the Plaintiff was not more than an average of 000 won during one taxable period.

(E) The Plaintiff submitted 000 won transfer data to prove that there was a fact of normal transaction with the XX Council, but this was the amount that could not complete the normal transaction cost with the XX Council.

In full view of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the issue of this case was not the Plaintiff’s normal purchase from the XX Council, but the Plaintiff was paid for a fee from Y.

(2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that the materials of the instant disposition collected by the Defendant from the O Steel, Y, etc. were falsified, but each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 10 through 26 (including virtual numbers) is insufficient to recognize the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.